Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/263,548

VACUUM PROCESSING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 31, 2023
Examiner
BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH
Art Unit
1794
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ulvac, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
338 granted / 707 resolved
-17.2% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
735
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
55.7%
+15.7% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 707 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (US 6,184,972 as cited on IDS) in view of Ohashi (US 2021/0074576 as cited on IDS). Regarding claim 1, Mizutani teaches an apparatus comprising a stage (1) on which is disposed a to-be- processed substrate (W), a lifting/rotation mechanism which is capable of lifting (34) the to-be-processed substrate (W) lying on the stage off from an upper surface of the stage so that, at this lifted position, the to-be-processed substrate (W) is capable of rotation (36) about a substrate center by a predetermined rotational angle (col. 10, ln. 33-50); wherein the lifting/rotation mechanism comprises: a driving rod (13) built into the stage so as to be moveable up and down and also be rotatable (Fig. 2); and a substrate supporting body having a base end plate part (10, fig. 2 and 3) capable of contacting a central region, including the substrate center, of the to-be- processed substrate (W), the substrate supporting body also having at least two arm plate parts (11a-11c) elongated from the base end plate part outward thereof so as to be capable of contacting such a portion of the to-be-processed substrate as is lying diametrically (FIG. 2 and 3); wherein the substrate supporting body (10) is ordinarily immersed into the stage (1, 2a) so that the to-be-processed substrate (W) is supported by such a base end plate part (10) and arm plate parts (11a-11c) as are lifted by an upward movement of the driving rod (13). Mizutani does not teach a vacuum processing apparatus comprising a vacuum chamber. Ohhashi teaches a vacuum chamber (Fig.8) wherein a substrate is lifted and rotated for processing. Ohhashi teaches substrate holders within vacuum chambers that lift and rotate are well known and operable within the vacuum chamber. Ohhashi teaches vacuum chambers are well known to provide thin films on a substrate. Either of substituting the substrate holder of Ohhashi with that of Mizutani or substituting the transport container of Mizutani with the vacuum chamber of Ohhashi would follow naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Mizutani by providing a vacuum chamber, as taught by Ohhashi, because it would allow forming thin films on a substrate within a controlled environment (pg. 1, [0003] and because one of ordinary skill in the art would have only expected predictable results. MPEP 2143 B. Regarding claim 2, Mizutani teaches a chuck plate for an electrostatic chuck (col. 23, ln. 60-61), the chuck plate (1) being disposed on a surface of contact of the stage (1) with the to-be-processed substrate (W), wherein the chuck plate is provided, in a recessed manner, on its upper surface with a retracting space (2a), so as to comply with a contour of the substrate supporting body (10), enabling for the substrate supporting body (10, 11a-11c) to be immersed thereinto such that, in a state in which the substrate supporting body is immersed, the upper surface (14) of the substrate supporting body is flush with the upper surface of the chuck plate (1, col. 9, ln. 33-36, fig. 1 and 2) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. JOHN J. BRAYTON Primary Examiner Art Unit 1794 /JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 31, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595552
MODULE FOR FLIPPING SUBSTRATES IN VACUUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12559834
THERMALLY STABLE METALLIC GLASS FILMS VIA STEEP COMPOSITIONAL GRADIENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555743
PLASMA PRODUCING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12505990
GLASS PALLET FOR SPUTTERING SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12505980
APPARATUS TO PRODUCE A WAVEFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+24.6%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 707 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month